Using "dog training" for people

[Ritz459]

And what I mean by "dog training" here is your basic Psyc 101: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, etc.

I was asked the other day by a woman what I was going to be majoring in at Purdue. I told her that I was going into Animal Science majoring in animal behavior and well being. This sparked a conversation about dog training and we jabbered back and forth a bit. During the course of the conversation I mentioned how I thought it was extreamly interesting that the same techniques that I use in training my dogs (positive reinforcement) are also used to teach children and adults. (The book Don't Shoot the Dog! is a very good example.)
The lady I was talking with took great offense at that comment and we got into a debate over the entire subject. I told her that of course humans aren't animals, but the same "training" psycological techniques that are used to train animals can be used on people as well.
I think that made the situation worse (for some reason ) and she said that people shouldn't be mentally manipulated - something along the lines of "I'm not going to manipulate my children and bribe them with rewards to behave for me."

When mentioning the same subject to other people it seemed like a sore spot for them as well. I frequently get into debates with my history teacher when we get off topic as he thinks that disciplining a child equals physical discipline, and I believe that it can be mental as well. He scoffs at the positive reinforcement "training" and can't understand why I am so adament about it. When I compare training an animal to teaching a child you can almost see him flinch.

I was on msn.com earlier today and I came across an article on a book about using positive reinforcement techniques on your husband. The idea is old, the author started promoting it in 2006, but I just saw the article today. Basically, the author used positive reinforcement techniques to "train" her husband to calm down when he was looking for his keys and to not hover over her while she was preparing food, among other things. It also taught her to stop nagging and to not take her husband's little behaviors personally. (Here is the link for any interested: How to Train a Husband | Newsweek Books | Newsweek.com This next link is an excerpt from her book which is a very good read, IMO: Book Excerpt by Amy Sutherland | Newsweek Culture | Newsweek.com )

I don't think that any kind of reinforcement technique is gender specific, but there was a firey debate going on in the comment section about how using techniques like that on humans wasn't right - which eventually turned into a sexist debate (but we won't even go there).

When I watch the show Super Nanny I can almost always relate to what she is doing to how dogs and other animals are trained - structure, teaching the person in authority what to do, rewarding good behaviors, ignoring negative attention getting acts, and not tolorating any bad behavior by mental (and at times physical, depending on the situation) discipline. Being a calm and in control authority figure also plays a large role.
I just find it funny that when I compare the two, people get offended and uptight about it.

What do you guys think about the subject? Is using "animal training" techniques on a human something you consider wrong?

[LilacDragon]

Personally, I find that smacking my husband upside the back of the head with a cast iron skillet gets the best results. LOL!!

I think you are dead spot on. I also think that if you are going to tell that to the average "joe on the street" they are going to think you are nuts and argue the subject with you.

[Agile PAWZ]

When my kids were small 2-3-4 years old I got alot of compliements on their behavior in restaurants, stores ect. People would ask me how I got such polite well behaved children. I would reply it was just like teaching a dog. Same basic mental level for learning, I would get the strangest looks of disgust or horror that I would treat my kids like animals. Well it sure as heck is better than beating the heck out of them...and at ages 16 and 13 with the execption of occasional hormonal flashes from my 13 yr old daughter that training still holds true.

[dogs4life]

Ok, I'm going to say yes and no, but I think it really depends on what aspect of "training" you are talking about. So I say "Yes" to the basics, I believe all animals share many behavioral patterns and can be categorized by their "natural" or instinctual behavior, like they do in Systematics and Zoology. If you think of yourself as an animal first and a human second, it's easier to see the similarities we have with many species of animals not just dogs. But I also say "No" because people take the similarities too far and forget the complexities of human behavior and even general primate behavior. If we only think of ourselves as animals, we miss out on the influences of ego, culture and our wide array of emotions and emotional needs that other mammals do not possess.

I see traditional positive reinforcement as a controversial subject in many circles, including parenting, education and business. Please correct me if this is not what you meant, but if bribes or incentives are used as primary motivators much like the use of treating and luring our dogs, we fall short in managing behavior because we are conditioning humans to seek approval and guidance from other humans. There are great authors out there on this specific subject but my favorite is Alfie Kohn. So I say there is "no" need for positive reinforcement for behavior modification in humans and caution it's use. However there are positive stimulus that are not meant to be motivators but seem to really work, like pleasurable experiences such as a smile, affection, gratitude, respecting personal drive. I focus on the use of gratitude and personal drive (similar to prey drive or pack drive) rather than approval and luring approaches. Hope that makes sense.

Negative reinforcement is a whole different can of worms for me. In the human and animal world I see a wide array of reinforcement from what I categorize as violent and non-violent. IMO 100% positive trainers are non-violent, as I see them promote compassion, working with instinctive behavior and promoting a healthy level of respect for the animal. So I say non-violent (verbal and physical) negative reinforcement is useful for long lasting behavior modification.

As for Supernanny, IMO she lacks respect and compassion for the children and parents involved and really misses root issues. I'm not saying she does not improve the situations for the kids, but I would not use a lot of her methods with my children or my dog.

When mentioning the same subject to other people it seemed like a sore spot for them as well. I frequently get into debates with my history teacher when we get off topic as he thinks that disciplining a child equals physical discipline, and I believe that it can be mental as well. He scoffs at the positive reinforcement "training" and can't understand why I am so adament about it. When I compare training an animal to teaching a child you can almost see him flinch.

He might be classically trained and might be taking your comments too personally since he is a teacher of the humanities and not a biological subject. If you want to take him on, so to speak, I might suggest looking at Maria Montessori and Meridith Small to see where that takes you. Maria Montessori's research on human learning, IMO is very similar to Jean Donaldson's approach to dog learning just don't mention dog when talking about her. Meredith Small is an Anthropologist who studies primate behavior around the world, IMO she has a healthy respect for instinct and it's role in behavior throughout all species of primates including humans.

I forgot to add, that Karen Pryor does a similar "training" method for humans as animals, it's called TAG, Teaching with Acoustical Guidance. I'm on the fence on this one, I can see how during athletic training, it can be useful to communicate effectively and pin-pointing specific placement and movement but I can also see the fault in using coaching too heavily.

Sorry for the length but I really liked your question and it really made me sit and think

BTW, what does your mom and dad think about the articles you mentioned above? My dad would be offended from the wording but if addressed in a different way, he would be more receptive to discussion.

[Ritz459]

Ok, I'm going to say yes and no, but I think it really depends on what aspect of "training" you are talking about. So I say "Yes" to the basics, I believe all animals share many behavioral patterns and can be categorized by their "natural" or instinctual behavior, like they do in Systematics and Zoology. If you think of yourself as an animal first and a human second, it's easier to see the similarities we have with many species of animals not just dogs. But I also say "No" because people take the similarities too far and forget the complexities of human behavior and even general primate behavior. If we only think of ourselves as animals, we miss out on the influences of ego, culture and our wide array of emotions and emotional needs that other mammals do not possess.

I agree. Not much more for me to say. LOL

I see traditional positive reinforcement as a controversial subject in many circles, including parenting, education and business. Please correct me if this is not what you meant, but if bribes or incentives are used as primary motivators much like the use of treating and luring our dogs, we fall short in managing behavior because we are conditioning humans to seek approval and guidance from other humans. There are great authors out there on this specific subject but my favorite is Alfie Kohn. So I say there is "no" need for positive reinforcement for behavior modification in humans and caution it's use. However there are positive stimulus that are not meant to be motivators but seem to really work, like pleasurable experiences such as a smile, affection, gratitude, respecting personal drive. I focus on the use of gratitude and personal drive (similar to prey drive or pack drive) rather than approval and luring approaches. Hope that makes sense.

Actually, come to think about my own experiences, using a reward (for people) is more gratifying when used less frequently. If I'm constantly being praised, or otherwise rewarded, for a job well done I'm going to eventually tune it out. I can't tell you anything that means more to me when my Coach or my dad praises me for a job well done because it is something I almost rarely hear. Yes, they say the usual, "Nice job" over something trivial, but when Coach or my dad hugs me and congratulates me - then I know it is a job well done and I will most definitally do whatever they praised me over again. Which is what I took from what you are saying here:

However there are positive stimulus that are not meant to be motivators but seem to really work, like pleasurable experiences such as a smile, affection, gratitude, respecting personal drive.

If you praise over every little thing, it becomes useless, IMO.

I also think that a lot of people mistake bribing for rewarding. If my parent tells me, "Clean your room and we'll go out for icecream," that is a bribe. It really doesn't make any lasting impression on me except that I may come to expect icecream after I clean my room. If I don't want icecream, why would I clean my room?
Rewards when you sparingly can be useful, but I can see how that would make a person be "good" just for the rewards and not because of any moral justification. "I'll behave myself because I know when I do I get a new toy," not, "I'll behave myself because that is the right thing to do." Heck, when I do something because I know it is right, I actually push away any reward someone tries to give me because I didn't do it for the reward, I did it because it was the right thing to do.

No amount of praise, reward, or discipline will replace character. In order for anything to be effective, you must build up someones character first.

I was reading some of the articles that you had the link to and I ran across this statement about praise:

The more we say, "I like the way you…." or "Good ______ing," the more kids come to rely on our evaluations, our decisions about what’s good and bad, rather than learning to form their own judgments. It leads them to measure their worth in terms of what will lead us to smile and dole out some more approval.

I wrote out a great big long reply to this one, but I just thougt of a way to sum it up quite nicely: Isn't any form of judgment based on someone else's, whether that be good or bad?
In using the example above of Coach, before I make a decision at times I do stop and think, "Would this be something Coach would approve of?" That moment of hesitancy to consider what our parents, or other authority figures, expect us to do is much better than acting without any inhibitions at all. If it works to teach players how to play basketball and to make smart desicions on the court, I don't see why it wouldn't work elsewhere.

Also, from my understanding, even in training animals you want to get as far away from luring and otherwise "bribing" your dog to obey you as quickly as you can. I use the luring technique when I first teach them a command, but I phase out the lure as soon as possible. I don't want my dogs heeling only when I have a treat in my hand at my hip, but when they are off leash and I have no treats anywhere near my person.

So in a very long nutshell, I agree with you. Humans aren't animals. My dogs don't feel complex emotions such as duty, honor, moral worth, shame, betrayal, manipulation, etc.

For any type of "training" to be of any use, one must first have character:
3. character - the inherent complex of attributes that determines a persons moral and ethical actions and reactions; "education has for its object the formation of character"- Herbert Spencer
personality - the complex of all the attributes--behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental--that characterize a unique individual; "their different reactions reflected their very different personalities"; "it is his nature to help others"
spirit - a fundamental emotional and activating principle determining one's character
thoughtfulness - the trait of thinking carefully before acting
responsibleness, responsibility - a form of trustworthiness; the trait of being answerable to someone for something or being responsible for one's conduct; "he holds a position of great responsibility"
integrity - moral soundness; "he expects to find in us the common honesty and integrity of men of business"; "they admired his scrupulous professional integrity"

Character, IMO, is the cornerstone of any and all "behavior and training" in humans. Without it, you are doomed to fail, even if slighly, from the start.

As for Supernanny, IMO she lacks respect and compassion for the children and parents involved and really misses root issues. I'm not saying she does not improve the situations for the kids, but I would not use a lot of her methods with my children or my dog.

I think of Supernanny as the Ceaser Milan of the dog training world. I may not agree with everything she does, but she does make things better and her core ideas are good.

BTW, what does your mom and dad think about the articles you mentioned above? My dad would be offended from the wording but if addressed in a different way, he would be more receptive to discussion.

My parents think I'm nuts. Not really, but still. lol

Hmmmmm....I'm always complaining about how my sister, JeanAnne, has a messy room (which effects me because I share with her!)....maybe I should try out some "positive reinforcement" techniques on her to see if I can't get her to keep her room tidy. Telling her she lives like a pig doesn't seem to be helping, but threatening to throw away any of her things I find on my side of the room did work to keep her mess contained.

[dogs4life]

Any male perspectives?

OK another windy response.....

So with sports, since you brought it up and Pryor uses her techniques for coaching and teaching "learned" behaviors, I'd have to say praise is not necessary to motivate or to retain focus. A great coach will use language and demonstrations and during "practice" will use feedback, negative and positive. Some of my best coaches have been non-violent, incredibly intelligent and instinctively give constant feedback. BUT sports as we are talking about here are not instinctive, they are learned, bonding, activities where people choose to participate based on a need they need met. Whether their need be for community, exercise, a sense of accomplishment, a socially acceptable outlet for competition (mainly a male trait but women too enjoy competition). The use of rewards or praise during activities not one-sided, it's also meeting a need of the person giving the positive response. Our coaches give us praise not just for our benefit, but for their own. So it's really more complex, because you have lots of emotional needs on both sides and it really depends on each persons level of "need".

I also think that a lot of people mistake bribing for rewarding. If my parent tells me, "Clean your room and we'll go out for icecream," that is a bribe. It really doesn't make any lasting impression on me except that I may come to expect icecream after I clean my room. If I don't want icecream, why would I clean my room?

OK yes, there are feedback systems in social groups and "rewards" like we use with our animals IMO are bribes, praise is a bribe, it's really the intention behind it. I agree, if the bribe is not appealing then it does not work and control is lost. So I'm going to take a little side trip. According to a well respected author, Marshall Rosenberg, in order to get a desired response or modify behavior, you first need to understand motivation, and understand all people (very few exceptions due to mental disease) possess compassion and empathy. I think it's much like approach behavior modification with our animals, we try to find the reason and try to correct the root issue other wise we have an ongoing problem. What if I said to my daughter, "I'm frustrated that your room is messy. Every time I see this mess, it makes me stressed because I have a need for order and cleanliness". My daughter may not respect my need and I will have to cope if I want to respect her need for control or whatever need the messy room is fulfilling. In this case it's my responsibility to find a way to cope and not control since this is not a life threatening issue and I've decided it's okay to not get my way but I rather the room be clean. In this approach, I do not force her to conform to my standards, BUT she may have a strong enough bond and is willing to make changes based on her compassion and empathy towards me, it really depends on the bond and the motivating factors. It does not work now, she's only 3, too young to fully understand and is not of the age of reasoning (~8-10yrs old) but it can be used on older children and adults. This is not IMO how we train our animals. When training dolphins to jump through a hoop on command, I don't think Pryor was even thinking about the dolphin's empathy toward her or even if they are capable to empathizing.

"I'll behave myself because I know when I do I get a new toy," not, "I'll behave myself because that is the right thing to do." Heck, when I do something because I know it is right, I actually push away any reward someone tries to give me because I didn't do it for the reward, I did it because it was the right thing to do.

OR you did the "right" thing because you have learned that not doing it causes conflict and you hate conflict or there is an "external" negative response you are avoiding. Again the "right" thing is a judgment as you said above and sometimes is determined by outside influences such as an elder, a peer or an authority figure. But again it's respect, empathy and other emotions that are tapped into, which might be motivated by needs.

No amount of praise, reward, or discipline will replace character. In order for anything to be effective, you must build up someones character first.

OR appeal to the other person's "internal" motivations no matter what you offer "externally". If you believe every human is born with defined needs, say that person's needs are not being met, then that particular person, just like any other animal will struggle to get that need met. Does that make them evil or of less character? Do I fault my dog for digging under the fence and running about town free to fulfill her need for exercise and what ever other needs are being fulfilled, no, I re-evaluate her need, I try to find a suitable replacement to fulfill the need, I reinforce rules (my rules based on my laws not hers) with negative stimulus to get my point across. Where as treating and luring is pure bribery, is not natural and is not applicable in this instance.

Do bribes and lures work? Yeah, they work. Do I use them for my animals? Absolutely, they work and they facilitate communication. Do I use them on my daughter? I try not to but I have been known to resort to them in times of frustration and did not have time or chose not to take the time to "deal" with her properly. I don't think it's harmful in low doses, it's just not ideal if I want to teach her to think for herself and be authentic to her own beliefs not really to appeal to my own. Except when I have a dog I'm "training", not modifying manners or natural behavior, I want total control, I want obedience, I want dependence on me in order for training to be successful.

I wrote out a great big long reply to this one, but I just thougt of a way to sum it up quite nicely: Isn't any form of judgment based on someone else's, whether that be good or bad?
In using the example above of Coach, before I make a decision at times I do stop and think, "Would this be something Coach would approve of?" That moment of hesitancy to consider what our parents, or other authority figures, expect us to do is much better than acting without any inhibitions at all. If it works to teach players how to play basketball and to make smart desicions on the court, I don't see why it wouldn't work elsewhere.

I agree, there is judgment involved in sports, particularly team sports. There are rules of the game and strategy which are taught but there is also natural ability and skill. IMO coaches are doing many things at once, which makes it kinda complicated and very easy to dissect. Plus my best coaches did not want me seeking their approval during a game or competition, they needed me to think on my own, rely on muscle memory and perform under my own motivation. If I was constantly looking at my coach for guidance, then that coach failed me, I'm not learning to perform the task independently and would be too distracted to concentrate on the task at hand. I think it holds true for all sports, individual or team, the driving force has to come from within.

How about taking booger eating instead, very simple, I'm sure you can relate since you have younger siblings. If you tell your own 2, 3, 4 yr old son or daughter (before the age of reason) not to eat their booger and instead place boogers in a napkin or trash, why should they comply with your request? Now, if you request a stranger's child of the same age, they not eat their boogers and instead put them in a napkin, what is the response? Same request but the child will probably have totally different responses to the 2 different people. It's been my experience that if a caretaker (parent), tells a child to stop a behavior or modify it, then child will weigh the situation and quite possibly will not comply or do it in secret. If someone in their peer group or community tells them to stop, most likely they listen. Why is this? Some parents say, it's because the child knows the parent will always accept them for who they are, not matter if they comply or not and since the buggers are good to eat, then heck, where's the motive to stop? Now if a person from the community or their peer group asked them to stop, the kid will stop in fear of losing the interaction they value with the person or it may be an avoidance of conflict. All which I believe a lot of social animals possess as instinct.

Also, from my understanding, even in training animals you want to get as far away from luring and otherwise "bribing" your dog to obey you as quickly as you can. I use the luring technique when I first teach them a command, but I phase out the lure as soon as possible. I don't want my dogs heeling only when I have a treat in my hand at my hip, but when they are off leash and I have no treats anywhere near my person.

Me too, but what is the motivation for an animal to jump through a hoop or heel, all not really natural behaviors, especially on cue? Is there hope for a tasty treat? Is it fun? Why comply? Is there a bond? What about animals that do not value treats over play or a game of tug? Where do they fit? Why should them comply?

So in a very long nutshell, I agree with you. Humans aren't animals. My dogs don't feel complex emotions such as duty, honor, moral worth, shame, betrayal, manipulation, etc.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I don't think we are animals because I do think we are animals just more complex than most animals. In the articles and in Pryor's book, I think they miss very important aspects of being human and differences in male and female values and instincts which are strong motivators.

Hmmmmm....I'm always complaining about how my sister, JeanAnne, has a messy room (which effects me because I share with her!)....maybe I should try out some "positive reinforcement" techniques on her to see if I can't get her to keep her room tidy. Telling her she lives like a pig doesn't seem to be helping, but threatening to throw away any of her things I find on my side of the room did work to keep her mess contained.

This would be a great experiment, but I challenge you to consider this, what's in it for your sister? Why should your sister comply with your request? Not to be mean but compassionate to your sister's needs as well as yours. What need of hers are you appealing to? It just makes more sense to me as an animal

Check out Marshall Rosenberg for this issue too, IMO he teaches conflict resolution in what I'd call an instinctual way. Again, another goofy looking dude like Kohn, but he gives another perspective.

[k9hullio_sam]

Originally Posted by Ritz459

In using the example above of Coach, before I make a decision at times I do stop and think, "Would this be something Coach would approve of?" That moment of hesitancy to consider what our parents, or other authority figures, expect us to do is much better than acting without any inhibitions at all. If it works to teach players how to play basketball and to make smart desicions on the court, I don't see why it wouldn't work elsewhere.

I don't have much to contribute to this topic, but it is very interesting. I just wanted to comment on this. Yesterday in English, my professor asked us if no social authorities were in place, would we still follow 'laws' and live normally as if they were a sort of moral standard.

I couldn't answer the question. I just read an article by Kaplan for another class, and it compared the slums of Sierra Leon and Turkey. He describes the crime in Sierra Leon, where the cops are too afraid of the people, and not financialy supported to intervene. Crimes are so abundant, according to Kaplan, because the young men responsible have nothing to live for. Fighting and criminal activity is a step up from what they have. As opposed to Turkey, where the slums are very structured and more peaceful.
The missing link between the two is culture.

Back on topic, I think the whole point of 'training' humans would be to shape their instinc, and allow them to make good decisions based on their own judgment and not what others thought of them. To create the culture that is so strong in Turkey slums.

Basically, I think you would want to train your children to do the laundry because it is dirty--not because mom will be mad if they don't. I think you should be able to act appropriately even if you didn't have any inhibitions. I think that is one place dog training really doesn't apply to humans. We can reason and think logically, so why don't we use that to our advantage?

Sorry it was sort of a confusing way to get to my point, but its late (thats my excuse haha)

[TinyAlbinoDancer]

I have a degree in child development and often find parallels between training a child and a dog. I just never bring it up because I understand people's reactions will rarely be enthusiastic for the concept (as you have found). lol People are opposed to the idea because no one wants to believe their intelligence or their offspring's is anywhere near as "low" as an animal's, but the reality is we aren't born rational and reasonable. lol So I understand where you're coming from and how you can see the similarities. I definitely see them, too. I may even be guilty of using one's training techniques on the other. Hahaha!

[Carrie]

Behavior is fundamentally the same across the board in all living organisms. Of course, one must realize the differences between species and take that into account. But every living thing is constantly trying to get the good things and avoid the bad things. Training is simply manipulating the environment in order for the dog or the child to get the good things, contingent on their behavior. You don't need punishment to train. You simply need to reward good behavior and prevent or remove reward or reinforcement for bad behavior. The good behavior will then be repeated and the bad behavior, since there is no pay off will extinguish because that is how it works. (law)

I think the super nanny is wonderful. I don't see her like Cesar Milan at all. (funny how we see things differently lol) He uses intimidation, supression and physical force...modelling and he uses little to no reward. The super nanny uses reward, (not bribery) is consistant, has the same consequence for every behavior. She removes the good thing, things the children like... or motivator for bad behavior and gives the good thing for good behavior. She uses no physical force or pain. Since they're human children, she explains things in ways appropriate to their ages....clear and concise with no fear tactics.

So, if anyone is offended when you mention training dogs and children in the same breath, they clearly don't understand that it's not so much about what species as it is about the science of behavior and how it applies to all living organisms right down to bacteria, with certain various nuances applicable to individual species and even individuals themselves. Basically... behavior is intrinsically or fundamentally a constant regardless of the species.

[D.Schäferhund]

Of course the dogtraing works with kids/humans, even adults...

As it was stated before, we are animals, and what we do not think about is that our knowledge is learned, if do not get thought all the things we do not know them, put us in an invironment where it is very basic and we stay basic...
Take a human out his known invironment and put him in a different he will adapt, he will learn.
That goes both ways, take a child out of a tribe that lives a very basic live in the bushes, you will see it has the same abilites to learn the same things like one that was born in the western cultures.
But this goes the same way, our basic outline is in short very basic, and we do function in all the basic ways all mamals do!
why shouldn't the laws of learning not apply to us? We are not so much different, and in the devlopement stages we go through the same processes like animals.

I just had to attend a training from work, "special needs" wich was focusing, too, on the early years...
For me lots of repetition so i had time to think about something different...
I was laughing and at the same time very sadned about it....
When we talk dogs, we all know how important socialisation is and what it all means, and it sadned me deeply, that we have to tell our other humans, that it is good to coo over your baby and give it attention....
Where did our intelligence get us? all that mommy behaviour should be there, we should know what to do, why do we have to point out the most normal things to do with a baby or child?

And learning in every wich way is subject to a law, the laws of learning... the neurologie of the nervendings in the brain...
People who do not understand this, will never understand why you have the "audacity" to compare dogs with people.
Positive reinforcement is a phrase used in animaltraining- very pronounced.... but in the education in children and humans it is missing... and this is sad.
It kinds was for me, like they intended to reinvent the wheel.... I though:" Guys, it is all out there allready!!! Just open ur eyes!!!"